MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074093214 · doi:10.1520/gtj11095j

A Laboratory Study of the Hysteresis of a Thermal Conductivity Soil Suction Sensor

2002· article· en· W2074093214 on OpenAlexaff
Meiling Feng, DG Fredlund, Fangsheng Shuai

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHysteresisSuctionCapillary actionGeotechnical engineeringCeramicMaterials scienceThermal conductivityCalibrationMechanicsComposite materialGeologyEngineeringMathematicsMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An experimental program was set up to study the capillary hysteresis of the ceramic block for a newly developed thermal conductivity soil suction sensor. The testing program included two series of tests: one series of tests measured the capillary hysteresis of the ceramic blocks and the other measured the hysteresis of the relationships between the suction sensor output and the applied suctions. Test results show that there can be approximately 40% error from the correct suction value if the conventional calibration curve is used without considering the effects of capillary hysteresis. Based on the experimental testing program, a mathematical approach, which is able to take into account the effects of capillary hysteresis, was proposed when interpreting the measured soil suction data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207